WATCH: Kermit Gosnell's House of Horrors

Full Transcript:

I have to tell you, this is the most disturbing show that I think I’ve ever done.  This is some of the most disturbing information that I have seen and some of the most disturbing pictures I have ever seen, and I, you know, the last five years have studied the Holocaust and Auschwitz, so I’m not shocked by an awful lot anymore, unfortunately.  But I am shocked by what I’m going to show you tonight.

The old saying in TV news is “if it bleeds, it leads,” right?  But in a trial of abortion Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the media has shown sudden, incredible restraint at best, despite this, a 261-page report from a grand jury that is so shocking, horrifying, tragic, gut wrenching, tells you an awful lot about who we’re dealing with, not just with the doctor, but also society.  It is filled with details that make Hannibal Lecter look like Mother Teresa, and the media is just not interested.

I mean, they couldn’t get enough of Sandra Fluke’s plea for government-funded condoms.  They went full-throttle after the Susan G. Komen Foundation said they’re not going to give money for the abortion clinics of Planned Parenthood.  Tonight’s episode is going to make you just so proud to support Susan G. Komen.

Somehow, the news media just couldn’t see their way to news, any worthiness of a story about this man, Kermit Gosnell, and his murder clinic.  It was described with a TV-friendly headline “house of horrors.”  That’s what they call it in the grand jury report.  For over 20 years, Dr. Gosnell ran a multimillion-dollar abortion mill.  He got rich off routinely snipping the necks of the babies.  Don’t put this up yet, please.

I am going to show you beginning here some horrifying pictures.  This is your last warning to get the kids out of the room, stop, watch it later, or turn this off, but I think it is important, especially if you’re on the fence about whether it’s a baby or not.  Go ahead and show this.  Snipping the necks of babies…this is the back of a neck of one of the babies, and I’ll tell you which baby this was here in just a minute.  But this is the back of a baby’s head.

This was Gosnell’s term for jamming scissors, snipping, scissors into the back of the neck and cutting their spinal cord.  He also severed the babies’ feet, and he kept the feet in jars in the office.  Witnesses testified that the babies were moving, they were breathing, they were screeching.  Another witness testified they personally saw the doctor snip the necks of more than 30 babies.  Yet another said she had to kill the baby that was delivered in a toilet by cutting its neck with scissors.

He literally was able to convince people, and it doesn’t seem apparently that it was that hard to convince people in Philadelphia that worked for him that it was okay to kill a living, breathing, moving baby because, “It’s the baby’s reflexes.”  That’s all.  “It’s not really moving.”  Don’t worry about it.  As if killing the baby moments before in the womb was somehow or another better, so I guess you’ve already made your line.

We are talking about the cold-blooded murder of innocent babies.  Many were 20, or 25, or even 30 weeks along in the pregnancy.  I have to tell you, I see some of these pictures, and I see my children.  Now, that’s well past the 24-week limit.  One 30-week-old baby he aborted was nothing more than a punch line to him.  He joked that the baby was so big he could’ve walked her to the bus stop – that baby.

That baby was breathing and moving when born.  And he said, boy, your baby is so big, he could walk me to the bus stop, and he snipped the neck.  He took this baby and then just matter-of-factly threw him in a shoebox with the arms and legs lifelessly hanging over the edges.  This is Baby Boy B.  They found his body frozen in a one-gallon spring water bottle.  He was at least 28 weeks when he was killed.

“Baby C was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord.”  She did it just the way she had seen the good doctor do it so many times.  And then the report goes on to the Sunday babies, the Sunday babies, “’the really big ones,’ that even he was afraid to perform in front of others.”  By the way, did I tell you that this is a black doctor, and he wasn’t doing this to white women because he said that white women would most likely complain and so he’d get in trouble.  So he was just keeping it to African-American and minority women.  This was Margaret Sanger’s dream come true, Progressives.

He said the really big ones he was afraid to perform in front of others.  These abortions were scheduled for Sundays – oh, he stayed with the Lord’s day – a day when the clinic was closed and none of the regular employees were present.  The only person allowed to assist with these special cases was his wife.  The files for these patients were not kept at the office.  Gosnell took them home with him and disposed of them.  We may never know the details of these cases.  We do know, however, that during the rest of the week, Gosnell routinely aborted and killed babies in the sixth and seventh month of pregnancy.  The Sunday babies were bigger still.

They described the facility as – as quite interesting, “scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs, were fetal remains.  It was a baby charnel house.”  He slaughtered hundreds, possibly thousands of children.  This is the biggest, bloodiest, mass murderer in the history of our country.  This guy is far, far worse than anything, anything that Jeffrey Dahmer did, far worse, any of the mass murderers, serial killers.

The media doesn’t cover it.  Well, they didn’t cover it until they were shamed into it.  The media would be more interested, I guess, if he would’ve used an AR-15 to ensure fetal demise as he called it.  About the only media attention was this story reporting on how little attention the story was actually receiving.  A columnist from Bucks County, PA, J.D. Mullane, one of the few actually covering the event.  He snapped, this is the most damning photo for the press at a recent courtroom hearing.

Those seats are reserved for the various members of the press, three rows of seats to accommodate 40 reporters.  Mullane was the only reporter to attend, along with one from the New York Times who showed up later in the day and stayed for maybe five minutes.  The trial began nearly a month ago on March 18, but NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, no, they didn’t cover that at all.  They covered it last week.  The question is why?

Well, I want you to know I don’t think it’s some conspiracy theory to avoid the story or anything like that.  I think it’s a lack of intuitive interest from the press that betrays their beliefs.  You see, abortion is not wrong to the people in the press, it’s not wrong.  I mean, it’s not really a big deal.  The White House press conference today, Jay Carney was asked about Gosnell, and here’s what he said.  I want you to listen to this carefully.

Jay Carney:  I’ll say two things. One, the president is aware of this. Two, the president does not and cannot take a position on an ongoing trial, so I won’t as well.

Oh my gosh, how about Trayvon?  Let me ask you this – boy would I like to use some names.  This president during the health care debate accused doctors of cutting the feet off of patients for an extra 30 grand.  Do you remember that?  And I said where is the evidence?  Give me one case, where’s the evidence?  Nothing, and the press went on and reported those lies over and over again.  And yet he has nothing to say about this doctor who literally has feet in jars, and the president can’t speak out about it.

Oh, he does care about healthcare so much, doesn’t he?  He cares about the American people and making sure that we don’t have another Mengele.  You see, the left isn’t outraged that 25 week-year-old babies are terminated or 25-week babies are terminated, because it’s completely legal the week before.  So if you’re totally cool with an unborn baby being terminated as you would call it at 24 weeks, why are you appalled when they’re terminated seven days later?

Perhaps the scariest part of this entire story, the thing that concerns me the most, is what Gosnell convinced others to do.  He convinced people, apparently it wasn’t too hard either, to look at a living, crying, moving baby and slit its neck and murder it.  “Over the years, there were hundreds of ‘snippings.’  Sometimes if Gosnell was unavailable, the ‘snipping’ was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff…”  Really, you go from licking stamps to killing babies? 

“Everyone there acted as if it wasn’t murder at all.”  Well, of course they didn’t think it was murder.  Of course they didn’t think it was murder.  They’re a week late.  What have they been indoctrinated with for so long?  That’s not a life in the womb; that’s a woman’s choice.  She can do whatever she wants with it.  We’ve just heard over and over and over again how it’s just nothing but tissue in there.  It’s just a collection of cells.  MSNBC calls that a thing.

Well, if you can convince someone to murder an infant in cold blood, of course this is a thing.  Look at the picture.  That ain’t a thing, man.  If you can convince somebody that you can go in and kill that child, a woman can kill that child, and then just, I guess, brush it off and call for the next patient, if you can do that, what can’t you convince them to do?

Let me tell you something, this is a result of a culture that does not value life at all.  For over two decades, hear me, 20 years, Kermit Gosnell convinced people to slit the necks of perfectly healthy babies, several per day, week after week after week, year after year, baby after baby after baby.

Let’s just take this as – the testimony says an average of 15 a day.  Let’s just look for the first decade.  Fifteen a day, that means this man killed more children in a single month than all of the school shootings in the history of America combined, and no one in the media says anything.  But that’s only because they care so much about children.  We have to do something for the collective, you know?

I lived in Philadelphia.  I live in Texas for a reason, but believe me, we’re headed for troubled times.  When a society does not react to these kinds of things, there’s trouble.  When I tell you there will be stories coming out like this over the elderly or the handicapped, go ahead, mock me – the mentally ill, anybody whose quality of life a Progressive deems inadequate or if there’s an emergency, of course.

We’re already talking about – Krugman admitted the death panels, and nobody in the media said a word, and they’re already doing this in the UK.  Now, of course, they’re putting their elderly, 130,000 a year are put on the pathway to death, the death pathway.  Well, it’s being done for a very good reason, of course, out of compassion.  Well, hello, Dr. Mengele. 

Today is the anniversary of the birth and death of Corrie ten Boom.  Please, please read about Corrie ten Boom.  Please, reevaluate, because we need to stand.  The media is naturally recoiling from this story because it shines a bright light on exactly what it means to be pro-choice.  Sure, most abortion doctors aren’t as flippant about it.  They kill the baby in the womb so you don’t, you know, you don’t see the baby moving around and crying.  It doesn’t cause any trauma.  But whether this is in the house of horrors or in the best hospital in America, the end result is the same, a real child dies.  A life ends.  That’s it, period.

You can call it whatever you want, but that’s the truth, and the truth shall set you free.  Now that people are catching on, the media is scrambling to cover its tracks.  How about the hospitals, are they covering their tracks?  Because hospitals were involved in this.  This one I love.  This one is from NBC news:  “The story is on our radar.”  Really?  How about this from CBS:  “CBS has been working the story...”  Oh, I bet you have.

CBS Evening News – Sunday, first time they reported on it.  Washington Post got pissy.  They admitted that he wasn’t aware of the story.  Watch this one, wasn’t aware of the story until the readers began e-mailing about it.  “I wish I could be conscious of all stories everywhere, but I can’t be, nor can any of us,” says Martin Baron, Washington Post Executive Director.  Oh well, thank you.  You sound humble.

Even Headline News, a network that I believe is 80% Nancy Grace and the other court-related shows, they’re not even bothering to cover this case.  Well, this is a fascinating case.  In the interest of being fair and straight up with you, we didn’t cover it, either, at least not right away.  I don’t have affiliate stations in every market in the country.  I don’t have a massive staff.  It’s our job to get it right.

It’s our job, so I won’t use that staff or anything else as an excuse.  That is why when the trial started on March 18, TheBlaze didn’t have any coverage of it until March 19, the day after the trial began.  Where were the reporters that I know for a fact read TheBlaze every single day?  Where were they?

At the risk of sounding crass, help us grow.  We will not miss the story of the biggest serial killer in American history, and for another thing, people don’t progress.  They might as individuals over their lifetime, but we all start at the beginning with good or evil, and it is up to each of us as individuals to decide, not the collective.  The collective doesn’t decide.  We don’t progress as a collective; we do as individuals.

Tell me, tell me this isn’t the American Mengele, and no other network would dare say that, no other network.  Every other network would chastise me for saying it on the air.  Amen, brother, this guy’s a monster.  And nobody will say it because whether it’s left or right, you are not getting the truth.  You’re getting a political agenda, and that agenda too many times is the collective right over the individual right.

And you’ll notice when the media will tell this story, they will not show you the pictures I showed.  And maybe they’re making the right decision, but I don’t think so, because those pictures will make you say, Who the hell in the collective is standing up for the individual child?

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.